Naw, it's about the level of filth I expect from somebody with a netnick that translates as "shit eater".
The media had little to do with Clinton overcoming his cheating coming out pre-election. He was much better at interviews than Cain, younger, smarter and better looking and had charisma that Cain doesn't have. Clinton was also a successful politician and campaigner. And the clincher is Hillary stuck by him in a very powerful way. Without all that Clintonâs faith would have been the same as Cain's...history. You guys on the right should be glad this all came out, Cain had zero chance of beating Obama, he is a poser, a fake, he would never be president. I don't understand the far right, the people you guys get excited about are like one dimensional cartoon characters, Palin, Bachmann, Cain and Perry. Hell this group makes the 2nd president Bush look damn impressive.
I have to disagree about the media and Clinton. They tried their best not to report on the scandals, whch were legion and well-known in Little Rock. For example, did they mount the kind of all-out investigative frenzy on Clinton that they did with Sarah Palin? Obviously not. As I recall, they even set up a softball interview on 60 Minutes to give the candidate a chance to deny everything and did nothing to rebut his lies. I was told by a democrat official back then that they all knew Clinton was a dirtbag, but that there had been assurances given that he would turn over a new leaf in Washington. Obviously, that was a lie as well. There is a long history of democrats doing this kind of thing and getting away with it. FDR, JFK, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, Clinton. The only ones who got ruined were the choirboys like Gary Hart and John Edwards. Ted Kennedy was responsible for a woman he was partying with getting killed, and the media acted like it was rude to mention it. By any standard of fairness, disputed allegations of harassment from 15 years ago should not be relevant. That's not how I see it playing out however. The media see the chance to remove a mortal threat to obama and will do everything within their power to make it happen.
Back in the JFK days and before almost ALL politicians and men in power got away with screwing around, to suggest it was a Democrat perk is false. I remember watching the Clinton's interview and it was not flattering to them. It was obvious he was lying. And I really don't care how much ass a guy gets, hell Bush 2 might of made better decisions if he had a hottie on the side giving him a BJ now and then, you know clear out the tension a bit. It does not matter to me the sexual habits of our presidents. Maybe they all should be screwing movie stars, it sure didn't hurt JFK's decision making or leadership abilities.
Speaking of randy presidents, a story I heard was that Daddy Bush tried to put the moves on some Hollywood actor's wife in the White House. The actor may have been Tom Selleck, who was practically a fixture in the Reagan White House but wanted nothing to do with the Bush 1 White House.